Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
and cuts they made and changes they have tried to accomplish in those very short eight months. that is what they are hoping the accreditation team does see that they have at least made a really good effort. >> how did they get into this mess? >> that is a point of conversation in the last eight months. when the accrediting team came last spring, they looked at what had happened six years ago. they have to take a look every six years at how the college is working. six years ago, they gave the college a couple of points to address and to change and to look at. essential essentially, they did not change them. they continued operating. when they came back last spring, nothing has been done and things were worse. >> if they had the recommendations, they were supposed to file six years ago and they never did it. have any heads been identified to roll? >> not that i know. they are looking at that. they are looking more to become one and move forward and address what has been given to them essentially and to become a cohesive college and serve the students that they need to continue to serve. >> sp
's been nine years since gavin newsom issued marriage licenses at city hall. a lot has changed. the shift is to the support for gay marriage. we have seen prominent republicans come out in support of it. how does that change your job next week before the supreme court? >> really, it doesn't and shouldn't effect what is a legal case that we are looking at interpretation of the u.s. constitution. things like public opinion polls and the political pressure that could be brought to bear really are not -- that's just not for a legal case like this. >> scott: you think the justices are more or less immune to that? >> i think the justices are used to being sucked into a political debate. their limited role as judges to interpret law. >> scott: what is the thing you and your team have to make sure the justices hear on tuesday? >> one of the most important things is the justices realize this is not just an issue of marriage, but states' rights and federalism. it would be unfortunate to have same-sex marriage imposed. marriage redefined for all 50 states by the intervention of the federal courts, t
sort of show that the country has undergone a sea change in the years since prop 8 and since dome that it's now mainstream and acceptable for cautious political players like big corporations like the obama administration to come out in support of same-sex marriage? >> when you have companies like microsoft and goldman sachs, companies that aren't the new kid on the block like facebook or twitter. they're coming out and saying, you know, we have conservative people who work here, we have conservative customers all over the country, all over the world, and we are willing to say we openly support the rights of our employees to marry whomever they choose. that does tell me they're not concerned about the public relations of this because the public relations negative effects will not be enough to harm their business bottom line. i think that means a sea change. >> and that brief was really just one in a wave of briefs filed this week. the obama administration filed one supporting same-sex marriage. california attorney general pamela harris filed one. and also there was one by a number
in children's pajamas ended up inside the children and change dna was a likely cancer-causing agent. it was banned from children's pajamas. we didn't know it was used in other products. in the last ten years, it has been the number one chemical in furniture foam in california today. >> by law, they are supposed to have these flame retardants, right? it is supposed to withstand exposure to candles without igniting. >> that's right. california is the only place in the world that has a standard saying the foam inside furniture will resist a candle flame. that leads to lots of chemicals in the furniture. it does not lead to an increase in fire safety. >> it doesn't? >> no. surprising. fabric is where fires start. there is nothing about the fabric. it says the foam inside will resist a small flame. if you drop a candle on the couch, the fabric burns. with flame retardants, it gives off a lot of toxic gasses. the flame retardants -- there is no benefit. >> the furniture industry defends the flame retardants. they say there has been a huge drop in deaths. 1,400 deaths in 1980. that is down
, is this likely to change the way policing is done in santa cruz now? >> sure. i mean, we're a town where, and i think paul would agree, where you don't want the police showing up to ask your side of the story in a misdemeanor accusation. you don't want them pounding on the door with guns drawn in bulletproof vests. there's no way the 92 remaining officers on that force are going to be taking such a casual, such a friendly approach. they can't. it's bound to change the way everybody in that town -- >> first time in 150 years that any officers have been killed in the line of duty in that town. >> let's be clear, part of the narrative of how this story played out is this wave of crime that swept over santa cruz and this is the culmination of rising crime, rising crime. that's not really a fair perception to santa cruz. >> it's been a lazy kind of reporting often from out of town reporters. i lived there 24 years. i used to cover the santa cruz police department in the early '90s. there have been a couple high-profile crimes recently like this one. ten years ago, i looked up the statistics in santa
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)